Okay, I'll go back to the text. All right, good. All right, good. All right, good.

[01:03]

Okay, good. [...]

[02:14]

Okay. Okay, good. I was, last night, I was trying to meditate on this image, particularly, like I went around in a big triangle, going around, in both directions. Imagine that, just take anything.

[03:20]

Imagine how it starts, and how it stops, and how it colorizes. And then, you start to get into that fear of movement. And then, fear of emptiness then moves to conventional. Conventionality, because emptiness is also conventional. And then, how conventional? And then, after that, you notice, oh, that's empty here. I'm not speaking about the emptiness. And then, now, you find out that it's empty. And now, you're heading towards the conventional. This is, sometimes, unconventional. But, already, almost before you get there, you're all confident. And then, you're approaching the conventional, knowing where the conventional is going. And then, you're coming out of emptiness, back into the conventional realm, into the conventional color,

[04:26]

into the conventional feeling, into the conventional reality. Before you come, you're already there. But, in the springtime, when you see the cherry blossoms bloom, you know they're going to fall. You're coming out of emptiness, into the springblocks of reality. Now, you're a beautiful, beautiful person. And then, however, even though they've fallen, they've fallen into themselves, because of the time appropriateness, you've fallen, you've been manipulated, and it's been around that way. Then, you can also start with the conventional. You can go to emptiness directly, to the conventional, or go to the chemical arising, and enter the conventional. You can jump back and forth, go round and round and round and round. But, be able to move your mind, to the feeling. Now, that, but I also mentioned on the vertical aspect of it,

[05:44]

sometimes it's like I'm in the corner here, I'm on the corner of your face trying to, kind of go left, or whatever, and now I'm going to be here, and I can look over and see that you're trying to go up a little bit. There's a way up there. There's a way not to. My position is in the conventional, and this is what I'm trying to do, my true position is in the chemical arising. There's a way up there, except for the other two, where there's a bounce in my perspective. And in that context, I just have to kind of bounce up to it, and there's a way up there. Move around to the other corner, and there's another way up there. Move around to the other corner, and there's another way up there. But of course, in some sense, by finding that you're in the center of the circle, there's a movement that can be done. So you have to move it. And balancing the time you spend,

[06:45]

you want to pick a point, a piece of the middle way, kind of like a proper position. It doesn't like lean over to one space. You don't want to spend too much time looking at one corner, or you need one kind of like, you don't want to spend too much time looking at the conventional. So there's another way to kind of tip back, so it's above that line. If you want to get off balance, there's another way. Another way is to go back over a little bit. Back over to the conventional. Again, if you spend too much time looking at the conventional, and you're kind of sporadically, the face will get on, and it starts looking like this way. So you have it. It's kind of tetrahedron, still. I think it's still a tetrahedron. It's a tetrahedron, I think. What was that? I don't know. I'm just trying to get the heat on, right? That's not what we're looking at. It's all about that.

[07:45]

It's interesting, I think they're equilateral, or isopores. Equilateral. No, equilateral. Not isopores. Isopores are at the two sides, in the right angle. These are not equilateral. It's shaped like this one, and this one, and that one, and this one, and that one. So, you have to keep in mind how marginal you are. How marginal you are, how much time you spend looking at the conventional, and too much time looking at the equilateral. Because that's... That's not what we're looking at. Let me raise that hand now. If I start taking questions now... Do you want me to take questions now? No. So, you can remember your questions, Dylan. Now, I'd like to go to one more character.

[08:48]

Character 2119-4. I'm going to give you one more question now. And character 21... Any factor of experience which does not participate in relational origination cannot exist. Therefore, any factor of experience not in the nature of Schumann cannot exist. They see that this discard incorporates previous ones. They say that nothing that doesn't depend before arise exists. Anything that doesn't depend before arise does not exist. And then, this is going back to the triangle here. They say that only depend before origin can exist. They say that anything that doesn't depend before

[09:51]

origin can are identical to anything. So, in this character, not everything, but everything is one factor. Factor of the thing before arising. All things go in a factor. And then... So again, in the... And I don't... Anybody who has more experience is pretty sure... or later now, whatever... I propose that the entry into this dynamic multidimensional world of the teaching of the Middle Way is through compassionate settling into a situation and then to be compensated for that situation in a grounded experience. Don't... Unless you're already enlightened, at one point, you shouldn't go into the triangle.

[10:52]

It's too empty. You shouldn't go through the triangle. In the conventional, you try to go through it. Go through it. After you go through it in the conventional, first you try with the conventional, otherwise, and then settle into it. Yeah, conventional. You go through the conventional. That's fine. Don't go into the emptiness. And don't go into the Middle Way. The Middle Way will be... Go through... If you go through emptiness, you go through the subtraction. You know. You're going to... That's simply because you're delaying your work. If you go into the Middle Way, you're going to enlightenment, which will also delay your work. But because you're enlightened, because you're enlightened, you go through the conventional. OK. Does that make sense? Now, I'm curious you said a little bit more

[12:00]

about this that I thought was interesting. In the pointer, page 73, there's a literal translation of that. It's kind of like... Real... Exclamation of real Dharma teaching is no teaching. Real, what's true listening is no listening. So, then, isn't no exposition better than talking exposition compared to no exposition? Talking no exposition compared to no exposition. And, therefore, talking no exposition compared to no exposition is speaking compared to no speaking. However, on a conscious sense, even if you get into no speaking, no listening, no listening, you're still concentrating. So, if you're going to comment on this,

[13:02]

the way to know is that usually it's negative. But, you know, at the same time, there's a stronger affirmation than yes. Or, there can be a stronger affirmation than yes. It means, or can mean, I'm not going to let you explain. It means, or can mean, the manifestations of the mind. Now, I said this before. I'll say it again. Remember, or concede to remember, that ironing is the primary rhetorical device of the brain. So, if you say no, you mean yes, or not. Ironing is when you

[14:06]

manifest expressions of possibility and intention. And the rhetorical device means to give people attention, to be real, than yes, and you mean yes, because you accept and know sometimes in a stronger way than yes. And again, this is not non-conventional. It's ironic. Ironic is a conventional rhetorical device than the regular conventional rhetorical device. That's what I just saw. Pardon? That's what I just saw. That's what you saw, yes. That's what you saw, that's where your intention was presented to you. In this case, there's no, not in the sense of no, meaning yes, but no meaning I affirm the realm beyond it. But then later, you said, it doesn't have the dimension around it, so it's no. And you said yes, but I don't mean yes in the point. It means the realm beyond it.

[15:07]

The realm beyond it, you know, in the middle of this triangle. In the middle of this triangle. There's a whole lot to track, but I think I'll finish this and then we can get on track. A little more organized here. May says, and I'll just say what he said later, because he doesn't intend it. No word means, no word means the right word under some circumstances and at the same time under other circumstances. It means that the connotation of the word should be denied. So, no form, no feeling, should be understood in the same way. Just know

[16:12]

your new life means this ivory tower philosophy and everything that it brings. See any ivory towers that's how you do yourself or anybody. Thank you. Just know your new life to enrich your moral conduct and form a ritual. You can form a ritual on me if they know. You know, you can jack it up in your lifetime. I've made a walkout. I've made a topic. They know. That doesn't mean yes. It means a yes that's so strong goes beyond yes and no. Goes beyond yes and no to the ceremony. Free yourself.

[17:16]

Free the family. You can save the ceremony, that's all. It's the same when you see a ceremony meditate on it and it co-arises. You can see the magic. You can see it and it co-arises. You can observe and it co-arises by ceremony. You can't see our ceremony if you can't see it. You see our ceremony as something that you feel guilty about. It's good particularly if you're a poor human or something. That's not just a mistake. That's turning the corpse of medicine into healing power of the ceremony into poison, right? But the ceremony is making medicine but then you have to make it and make it medicine. They know it. They know me. No, it's not the way I think it is. No, it's not the way I'm perceiving it now. It's a tendency co-arising. How is it a tendency co-arising? Look at that thing.

[18:17]

Watch how it happens. How it happens is exactly why it's a tendency. Constant practice of no has been the history of Buddhism. And I thought to say forgetting the practice of no in other words not watching and co-arising the practice of no. It's how Buddhism does it. It makes it easy to think that Buddhism benefits and establishment of some other things. Look, who wants to go to the editor and say no? You're only a child. Who's that? Who is a fool? He's such a fool. Right? That's right. That's right. But if you kill the institution

[19:19]

you'll be sorry you'll go blind. But don't kill it. You stand up right and say no. That no better not be a thing. It better be as a kind of a co-arising. Don't worry about the energy. We work hard and don't worry about the energy. We live. Have any questions? Hey, don't worry about the energy. Negation negation negation after negation can turn over and renew our perception and our preconceived ideas. In other words, what familiar life

[20:20]

mind gives you is better than your preconceived ideas. What? Something after your preconceived ideas. Negation negation negation Negation after negation can turn over and renew your perception and your preconceived ideas. What familiar life mind gives you is better than your preconceived ideas. Negation negation after negation can turn over Where everything

[21:20]

here here everything here is everything as it should be. I was not aware of this problem at that point but he just said here Now I wonder what he was saying. Anyway everything here here in this situation of negation here everything as it is means everything as it should be. Because everything as it is in the usual sense always should be negated.

[22:22]

Means one thing after another. Negation negation negation To see everything as it is means to negate everything as it usually is. And everything as it is means everything as it should be. So when you take everything as it usually is and negate it it gets to be everything as it should be. Everything as it is There is no such thing as everything as it is Everything as it is is just what happens when you negate everything as it usually is. In other words everything as it is is empty eventually. You don't get empty by just saying no. You actually need it. To know beyond negation and affirmation. Empty means negation negation

[23:24]

And that is everything has to mean everything as it is. So when you take everything as it usually is it doesn't mean everything as it is because everything as it is is a monster because everything as it is has to be negated. And it gets to be everything as it should be everything as it is. Negating one thing after another negation negation negation even though you're concentrating on one thing you're negating on one thing you're concentrating on one thing What's the one thing in this school in this school? Dependent Core Rights You've negated Dependent Core Rights and and and Negating Dependent Core Rights even though you're concentrating and meditating on Dependent Core Rights Negate that

[24:29]

If you're concentrating on something negate by seeing as Dependent Core Rights Everything feeds into Dependent Core Rights and then negates everything as it usually is Then once it's negated as it usually is it says it should be and negate that and do that and do that The result of practicing negating everything as is usual thing is what you mean by everything should be The way everything should be to be accepted as the way that everything is. This acceptance is the most important point of Nagarjuna's Middle Way.

[25:31]

When we practice upright sitting in the correct way, this acceptance takes place. In the realm of the mind, there are phenomena or phenomena in the subject or object, and the object is criticized and the subject is criticized. And I would say this is called the cutness of mind and object. And mind is no subject, object, because it is arising from it. Of course, it's not arising from it. Of course, it's arising from criticism and criticism. What are you going to say? Oh, I can't say that. Well, let me say it! Did you say don't say it?

[26:43]

I didn't say it. Oh, you said don't say it. I didn't know what to say. Well, what do you mean? Can I say it? Yes. Thank you. Now, this also shows you... This, then, mind... Okay? Then, mind, wherever, in the realm where there's no subject, object, or rule, that's the principle of mindfulness. That's the Bodhisattva principle of mindfulness. And I think Bodhisattva principles, Bodhisattvas, by having learned what each of the conventions means,

[27:45]

what we mean by the Bodhisattva principles, we realize there's such an invariable practice, a precept, a Bodhisattva precept, of not seeing. And all the other precepts can prove that. The figure one, of course, is associated with this. That's the then-mind realm of mindfulness and mindfulness. We come to a true understanding of the so-called, what do we mean when we say the so-called, of the so-called oneness of realm. We come to the so-called non-attachment. In other words, non-attachment, the word. We don't come to the emptiness of non-attachment, we come to the emptiness, oneness, of non-realm. Because we don't come to the thing called non-attachment, we come to the so-called non-attachment, which is pretty good, even though it's so-called. The true sense, in a way, is beyond the four negations,

[28:50]

the four negative propositions, and beyond the hundred negations. It's not different from the transmitting way of dogma, of this thing, which is the so-called, so-called, meaning of coming from the West. Meaning that coming to the West. Many things in the South. We're going to think from the West. This is the sho-ho-gen-do, me-han, the ocean. Subtle. Mind of Nirvana. I said meaning, but actually I want you to know the word meaning here, which I'm going to say, the meaning of coming from the West.

[29:53]

I said that in English. What is the intention of coming from the West? That's it. What is that? What is the intention of coming from the West? I'm going to tell you. Go ahead. Go ahead. What is that? What is the intention of coming from the West? What is that? What is the intention of coming from the West? What is that?

[30:59]

What is that? [...] Like the words? What is the intention of coming from the West? What is the intention of coming from the West? What is that? Okay, I'm up for any questions you want to ask me. If you want, you can have a presentation.

[32:20]

If you want a presentation, you can have a presentation. If you want to open up a presentation. If you want to open up a presentation. Are you satisfied with the answer to that? Are you satisfied with the question? Okay, we'll take a respectable question. Hold it. I wasn't asking for that. Now hold it. Dylan, Gloria, Stuart, Dylan, Gloria, Stuart, Mark, and... Mark, and... Mary, one of us? Last but not least. Okay, number one. Dylan. Well, my question is different than it was originally. But I guess what I'm noticing, for me anyway,

[33:23]

is that I need to, as you go through this class, continually empty what you're saying for me so that I feel like, you know, we started the class by talking about meditating or contemplating this tetrahedra. And to me that seems like doing something. Secondary to upright sitting. And so I have to, I mean, to me it seems like I need to just sit upright and that process of investigating that tetrahedron kind of takes care of itself. Rather than going to the zendo and sitting down and then drawing this tetrahedron into my mind, this kind of physical abstract shape and somehow exploring it. That, I mean, that just doesn't seem right to me.

[34:27]

And I'm not sure whether that's your intention because it seems like almost the way that, maybe it's the way that we talk, but it seems like almost everything could be taken as an admonition of something to do in the zendo. And I have to keep saying, no, I'm not going to worry about the fact that I haven't been doing that and I'm probably not going to do that and that's okay. Is that what you mean? Well, I think I understand what you said up to the point where you said exactly that. Okay. I understand it, too. My understanding is that I would say I understand it. It reminds me of what Kern said. When he heard about meditating on the tenfold rise, he thought that was going to turn into something to do and that would be an appropriate decision in terms of his understanding of that, too. So I understand what you're saying, and part of what has been said is that

[35:33]

in upright sitting, this process will be there. And you're not going to bring that process in in your upright sitting. I, that's why I said it before you did that, because we'll be able to dimension this, but I wanted to tell you what I think in my mind is quite helpful. For me, that is something that came up, something that came up to me and I wasn't in the same place as that for a while. So when you're practicing upright sitting, your mind is still playing, but you don't have to feel some obligation to bring anything other than what's coming up that you can. You might formulate without intending to bring it, just trying to get it in your mind. You might get swamped with tetrahedra. In that case, being upright would be an except. So this image is coming, and you touch it, and you touch it. Being upright. And being upright. There's three core ideas here.

[36:34]

Integrity, and transfiguration. So yes, I agree, and that's what I was saying earlier. Now, would you like to say something? Sure. My second question was answered. Instead of saying, Is that what you mean? I think what I meant was, is that what you meant? Is that what you mean? Yeah. I don't understand it. I basically, in upright sitting, I mean, don't bring anything in, and that is, just free stuff. So you just leave it here? I'd like to just leave it here. Well, you can have it with me. Okay. Maybe I won't take it in person, but... Whatever. Don't take it. Don't move it. Don't take it. Don't move it either way. It happens in some way. And remember, what I said before, so does that. It's just, words, and places. But it is what it is. It's doing. It's a conventional expression.

[37:37]

So that's just a good point. But I do want you to know that. Can I do this before I take your question? Yeah, sure. So the conventional, words are conventional. And as I mentioned, we have conventions to decide about words. The word Buddhism, we have conventions to decide about the words. And when I was in Japan, in Japan, they had a convention and stuff to decide about. So if you came with a young person, a parent, and I don't remember exactly what it is, but it's something like this. So this is, for example, a word that's been verbal, a word that's been called a conjugating verb. And there's a verb form called taberaebu. And one of the words of conjugating is taberaebu. What does that mean? To be able to. To be able to be taberaebu. And the kid, I think I showed him, taberaebu.

[38:41]

Wow. I think taberaebu. Taberaebu. What? Okay, to follow that, you have to get the kids, and the kids do that. They modify it. You know, they create it with the language, right? And then they call it, they have a convention. You know, you've got to do your own little convention. Decide whether or not it would be proper for the children to make it a new convention. Pardon? Does it change the meaning at all? They didn't give me the verb, but I could tell. It was in the shape of Japanese. But they decided. So I didn't know anything. Taberaebu. Taberaebu. Taberaebu. Convention Japanese. When they came up with the convention, that's when the Texas Convergence came down,

[39:44]

of course. And people say, blah, blah, blah. Of course, they can decide what they want to do, and all that kind of stuff. But this is, this is part of the deal. This is government. This is government. Convention in power. And there's another example, more closer to home, where the transmission of certain foodstuffs in Japan, one of them is a thing which is made of two words. One word is goma, which means sesame. And shio, which means salt. Like that, I mean, at the then line, modestly, it would become goma zeo. Not zeo. Which rhymes with one of our local sentences. So people say, Joe... Joe, the machio. So the question we're having is, will we accept the pronunciation of goma zeo,

[40:47]

or will we uphold, will the convention uphold the conditional pronunciation of goma shio? I don't know how things work, but what is it? What is the word? Goma. Right. Goma. it's plain goma. Sorry. Okay. So, that's mine. sorry. And you see how things kind of correlate? No, one is kind of correlating. All the things I mentioned, given the clarity of data, it's one stream. The other thing is correlating. Next question. What is the word? I've been looking at no for a long time. It's a really big part of how I work. And finally, it took a long time to even see the yes. And so I'm interested in the reference for the Suzuki Roshi thing that you were reading.

[41:51]

Is it something we can get a hold of? Yeah. We probably have more than one copy left. I'll either put the one that Peter gave me. I'll do it back to Peter. And then we'll see if we can find another copy in the library. It's his commentary. I think it's commentary on that case of, you know, the non-scientific, non-neurological, non-religion, non-integration, in that context. Because I thought it was very good. Isn't it? Yeah. It's another way of talking about the same thing. This way of talking about it, is what he called he's got a young girl talking. And this is an example, by the way, of how it is that in the event pool, in Japan, if I look at them, he's rather scholarly. He's an alchemist, an astrologer, and he's an integrationist. He's quite scholarly. He teaches alchemy, he's quite scholarly. He's a biologist. He's a teacher. He's a teacher of both.

[42:52]

He's quite scholarly, even though he was like a little man in the street. He became famous. He was called, they called him, we have to give that talk now, they were called him the political. And at the end of the 80s, he became generalist in his opinion, so there was some things in generalist in his opinion. Is that what they said? I don't know. I'm sitting right there. I'm going to take the sword and cut off his head. What do you think? I don't know what you want me to do. You know, if you realize I have the power, you can speak your story out if you realize I have the power to stop you. You know, I have the power to stop you. You know, you can get a cocaine and get a job for that. But he was a good guy, anyway, and his history was, he got young, and he had 17-18 years.

[43:52]

He got young and cute, and as you said, his father was most of my understanding when I was in high school. Don was just a good guy, you know. His other teachers, you know, his father, you know, had a lot of focus on him. He taught me everything I could. And then he ran for the block and didn't mind that. I'm kidding. So when we go to talk, and Don, and Don, we often welcome people that are young. So anyway, people like you and those kind of guys, they don't usually say that they're going to co-write and these kind of things. You know, they say anything they want. They don't feel like they're going to co-write and they're going to do it all. They're not so obviously talking about another thing, but you can see they develop a somewhat different way of talking about their history. But sometimes when people are here, for example, a few years ago when I started starting off with Don, he said, I'm starting off with anything I'm going to tell you about in five minutes. And that's probably the kind of thing

[44:54]

I do tell you about in five minutes. You know, I'm going to start with my traditional sense of knowledge and my knowledge and [...] knowledge And it's about compassion, and so when it comes in my sphere of, let's say, in my mind,

[45:59]

and I put it in this teaching, I can see how it can arise, how it can dependently co-arise. I can see how it can be empty, and it just does not sink into the conventional. For me, it is going beyond the convention, in the way that I cannot accept that if we, beyond us humans, it won't be there. For me to say that all pervasive compassion is just there because we humans perceive it would be selfish. Yeah, it would be selfish to say that it is just there because I have the possibility

[47:02]

or capacity to embody it. And so, and then I thought, and I go back and forth, and I say, in which other way can I say this? How else can I put this? And this is such a big thing for me that sometimes I'm so caught in this thing that because I was not able yet to say, even if you go on with other things, I'm still with that in my mind. So the other thing, in another way that I can say this, when this teaching was not available to humans because they were not ready for it, and then I got took it away, it was still there. It's something you can't kill. You can't kill things. That's beyond convention. Beyond humans being able to get a hold of it. That's true, but getting a hold of things. You don't get a hold of things by convention. Unless you get a hold of things.

[48:04]

Maybe I can go a little bit, because this is also what I brought up before. Before humans brought into this, depending on the core of the universe. Before human beings, depending on the core of the universe, before somebody depending on the core of the universe, there was no compassion. Compassion only has meaning in relationship to misery. There's none that have a meaning to compassion. The fact is, when we're looking at Nagas, it wasn't that people weren't suffering yet. Certain forms of compassion, certain expressions of compassion, people don't want. That doesn't have any history. They're awake. But compassion can respond to suffering.

[49:06]

You don't have compassion for things that don't end in suffering. No. But that doesn't have any meaning. No. Why? Do you think it doesn't have any meaning? For me, it's something that includes everything. Even something that is not suffering. It's a whole, something that spreads and includes. Even if we at some point won't suffer anymore, it will still exist. How? Tell me about it. Right. Because I think here you see that's an opposite of something. And maybe I don't see that's an opposite. It's not the opposite. It is the... Contra part. It's the... Contra part. It's the opposite. It's what makes it possible to suffer. The artifice. Without compassion, you can't be a suffering being. Hold back, you know. If you're a suffering being, and you can't be a suffering being, then you're trapped in your suffering. But by compassion, you can be a suffering being,

[50:09]

and you can be a suffering being, and you can be critical. It's all versions of that. It's not about saying that there is compassion or there isn't compassion. That's not what it's about. It's not about saying that there exists compassion even for human beings. It does exist intentionally. Aside from that, any other existence that we make is basically self-projection. So the only kind of existence that I can imagine beyond conventional is based on my sense of self, I project something that exists beyond what is conventional in the ways of the country. I had a hard time. It isn't hard, don't worry. No, I had a hard time accepting it. I know, it's hard to accept. That's why, as you said, accepting this is the key point. Right, but here I think that... Here I think it's where maybe Ben and you in that point say, this is it, and I'm standing on the other side saying, this is it. We don't say this is it. There is nothing beyond conventional.

[51:10]

And I say, there is something beyond conventional. Tell me about it. I haven't heard anything yet. Tell me about it. Maybe I cannot prove it, and you cannot prove the reverse either. I don't have to prove the reverse. All I have to do is find out that you're being incoherent. Well, maybe the only way I can prove it is to say, before humans existed, I cannot say there was nothing. We're not saying that there was nothing before humans existed. I'm not saying that. That's not conventional. No. Okay, before humans existed, there was no... As far as I know, there was no soft vaccine before there was polio. Maybe there was, maybe, but I don't know about it. In the conventional world, I don't think that there was this thing out there, waiting, called soft vaccine,

[52:11]

that did some physical or metaphysical thing. I don't think so. That's the way I think. I don't want to live in a world like that myself, where there's all this stuff out there, waiting to come in. To me, soft vaccine co-dependently arose with polio. And, after there's no more polio, soft vaccine will gradually be irrelevant. There won't really be a vaccine anymore. Historically, it was called a vaccine, but now it's not a vaccine anymore, because there's nothing that vaccinates. It happens like that. The Buddha nature is eternal. It's the way things are, you know. It's the way the stars, it's the way the galaxies work. And the way the galaxies work, the way the universe works is, when there was suffering human beings, enlightenment came in response to that. Before there was suffering beings, there was no Buddhist enlightenment.

[53:12]

All Buddha taught was that there's suffering. And that's all he taught. He wasn't trying to say that suffering really exists, suffering is an invention of existence. And that's the reason why there can be an end to it. If it really exists, when you accept it, what's the problem about it? So compassion is what's necessary. You have to have compassion to not just say, before suffering existed, you had to be willing to feel your pain, and to feel your own pain before suffering. You've got to take up your seat in the world of suffering. That's compassion. You've got to let yourself suffer. You've got to breathe yourself into your suffering. You've got to feel your breath for an in and out of your suffering. Compassion is necessary for suffering beings. It's not necessary for suffering beings to suffer. There can be suffering without compassion in a sense,

[54:13]

but really, compassion is somewhere that the suffering beings are at. Take the way of suffering beings. I know of no conventional meaning of suffering. I only know of a metaphysical meaning of compassion if there's no suffering. As far as I can tell, that's the only kind of compassion that I hear from you that's non-conventional. Maybe because it includes the possibility that maybe in eons and eons, humans won't suffer, and compassion will still be there. And maybe I'm looking at it metaphysically. It is true. I accept it. Maybe I shouldn't. You shouldn't accept it? No, maybe I shouldn't look at it metaphysically. It's okay to look at it metaphysically. We all do. We all slip into metaphysical ways of looking at things. We all slip into making things, making emptiness, or making more of the conventional than there is. This is a deep, deep, deep intimacy

[55:15]

that we try to make more by the conventional than the conventional. It's sad that we do that, but basically, we're going to probably keep doing that. Without trying to get rid of the fact that we're that way, it's very natural for us to try to make more out of conventional life than there is. That's natural. That's natural. It's sad. It's natural, but it can be overcome. The way it can be overcome is by meditating on the dependent co-arising of the attribution of the metaphysical activity. So you can go ahead and be metaphysical, and as long as you watch how it happens, you'll be free to do metaphysical. I don't know if I want to be here. You don't know? No. I don't want to be here. But I am a suffering person. So you're not suffering? I'm suffering, but I'm not sure because of my metaphysical...

[56:21]

Where do you think you're from? I'm clinging to it. But not because of it. Because I cling to it. But it can be there. Anyway, the Buddha said that because we have this metaphysical self, that is the source of clinging. Clinging is second. First is something to cling to. Number one is being able to make something to cling to. That's the first step. First was creation of a self. That's number one. Second is the independent metaphysical thing. You cannot empirically find a self. No one has been able to find one, and I understand you all have found one. One thousand. I make it more because I don't want to encourage any misbehavior. Anybody who brings me a miracle self, I've never had to say that yet.

[57:22]

Buddha never found it. None of his authentic descendants ever found it. If you find it, bring it to me. You've already said, you've admitted very nicely, there's a metaphysical self, not a empirical self. Once you have a metaphysical self, the mind will naturally, naturally grab it. It's true, a metaphysical self is just a metaphysical self. It's ungrasped, it's not self-realized. It's only when you grab a metaphysical self, and an empirical self, you can't grab. So it's only the metaphysical one that's going to be used. It's only the reified, reified, solidified, independently existing reality of self that will be grasped. And that's the cause of suffering. It's deep. If you don't grasp it, you're right, there will be no problem. But there is a deep tendency to grasp it, because you don't know how to stop it. When you love, you grab it. You love to celebrate it.

[58:23]

You're proud of it. And also, we're subject to self-ignorance, so we look away, rather than touch. And down there, we're holding on to this metaphysical thing, and we just hold it for a few moments. So, the part that you seem to be aware of is that it's metaphysical subject, and also, if you're aware of that you grab it, you cause a suffering. Another link that you can look for is, could you grab it if it wasn't metaphysical? And if you're not willing to give away the nice metaphysical things like compassion, you want to hold on. I'm willing to give up the metaphysical self, or grab it. I'm willing to give up compassion, but I want to hold on to these other metaphysical things. If you do those, then you can't let go of this. Because those are easier to let go of. You can always come back and get them. You've still got yourself. But, if you give away the self,

[59:26]

you give away the hurt. But if you can give away the self, and not grab the self, then you won't grab the skin. All the other attractions will go away. In the future, we're going to be born again. It's a story, you know. And the answer to this is, please accept what you can accept. Do not accept what you can't accept. Do not accept what you can't accept. Disagree. Smile at the first moment. No metaphysical thing there. Just smile at the first moment. And leave everything for anything to come to you. No metaphysical thing. Okay. Let's see. Is now getting close to the point? Does anybody have their hand raised?

[60:30]

Mark. Mark. I think so. I mean, was somebody after... Yes, quite a while ago. Mark, quick. Okay. You were talking along, and I think you said, Zen mind is no subject, no object. No subject to be... In the realm of. Okay, in the realm of. Okay. And then, you made this conclusion, or this statement, that that's the Bodhisattva precept of no stealing. Right. Okay. Well, I see some difficulty there, because when I think of stealing, I think of taking something away. You know, I mean, taking something that's not given, but something's being taken. Yes, right. Okay. But in that realm of no subject, object,

[61:33]

is there anything there to be taken? So I don't see the connection of how that can be stealing. This is the Bodhisattva of not stealing, not the Bodhisattva precept of stealing. Well, I mean, one implies the other, right? There is no Bodhisattva precept of stealing. There's no Bodhisattva. Well. What I mean is that, if... Let me say this, okay? Okay. In the realm where subject and object are not separated, that's the same as that you don't steal. Oh, okay. You don't take what's not given in the realm where you don't steal. Oh, okay. I see what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that something's been taken out of that realm. No. And also, in that realm, where subject and object are separate, they're not separate, and you see the substance of mind and object, you just sit back and bliss out with the way things actually are. You're not going to steal the entertainment of them. And also, when you come to that realm, when you come to an object, you don't grab it with one hand.

[62:34]

Okay? You grab it with two. Then you grab it with your head, your whole being. Then you just prostrate yourself to it. It's not stealing anymore. You worship that object. You don't take it. There's no stealing. That's the Bodhisattva precept. He said now, all objects are radiance. You don't go out stealing radiance. That's Bodhisattva precept. There's a story about that. What do you call it? The color thieves? The color monsters? The people that are stealing all the colors? Those guys, they just steal light. Spectrum. Spectro. Spectrally, they're now analyzing how to steal the different elements. You understand? It's a modern story. It's a kid's story. It's not a real story. It is. It's like a rainbow. They go over and suck the bottom of the rainbow. How mean. And they swallow all the colors and stuff. But anyway, usually you don't do it. Bodhisattvas usually don't feel like doing it.

[63:38]

They just jump into it. So then they don't steal. Okay? Yeah. You know, take this stone. A couple of days ago, I had a uh, what was it? I don't know. I think to me, uh, no. Every time that we're, uh, accused of something, or, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, we steal light. We're accused of something or we find

[64:38]

some work or something that we've done. What we tend to do is to use the light. And what's really interesting to me is that one Another thing that I deny all is the representation that both those schools have. One school does not steal it away. One school steals it away. The other school, like, swallows it. And the other school, they just confess it and move on. So what I was thinking of was that what was basically what we have been doing when we did this and what we've been doing in the West since the recovery is we're basically trying to work where we are empty by showing the conditions that we have

[65:39]

by not believing the cold. But because it is diminished now, our senses are only able to provide a feeling I think what you're doing I say by the way When I do this I'm not attempting a fight or attempting to colonize I'm calling I'm calling you That's what I call you I'm giving you away That's what you You're like a man I can give myself and you I can give you Let me tell you what you really need to know that's weird the other way is really I did do a bad thing I mean I did a really bad thing I needed something that was really bad I needed something that was that good that was efficient selfishness that bad that things that I didn't do This is called really really really real you need to hold still And of course the question

[66:39]

It requires you to know who to check out of that school and who to go to work for. But I think that was really not emptying. Because if it's emptying, you do not say anything more about it. You don't write it off, you don't let it go, you don't... You say that kind of stuff and you leave. And that's something that has been some of the stuff that I'm compelled to do. The reaction, I'm going to talk to you about. Again, I'm not able to tell which words to remember when they're real. I haven't been able to say them at all. I'm not also able to talk about them. Well, I know that you have something more to say. Well, I'm not quite... I'm not quite sure what I'm going to say. The way I'm looking at it, I knew from the beginning that this was going to be the other one.

[67:48]

It seems like I carry around with me a sense of myself in a sense of ease. Even though it appears like a habit, at some point I've decided that I'm going to leave it. So, I take it. And so, when I do something that isn't quite up to what I think is who I am, then I try. I break it up into something that doesn't make sense to me anymore. In other words, I don't want anything to destroy the sense of self that I have. So, anything that anyone says, or that I say, or that I see about something lacking, I say, well, no, I wasn't able to say I'm trying to shatter whatever comes at me this afternoon.

[68:56]

One of them is that of the demons. The other one, you said before, was an alien. So, one of the alien sites is called Millet. Millet is an alien site. Millet is an alien site. They're kind of alien sites. They're sites, but they're really kind of alien. This one, you said, is a demon. That's good. That's called a demon. That's good. That's very polarizing. That's good. I'm not going to say something about it. I'm going to say something about it. Something about you. This negation that you talked about, it should be applied to your attribution of substance. You didn't say, go around, and I also didn't say, don't go around trying not to be a substance.

[70:01]

Don't go around trying not to see the world as it usually appears. That would just be a trick you'd play on yourself. You think that you could stop yourself from seeing the world the way you see it. What the negation is, is the negation of the fact that you do see the world that way. So you don't say, oh, I'm not going to see it that way. I don't see it that way. You say, no, you don't see it. The way you see it, the way you do see it. So you basically go around confessing all the time that you make the world into a metaphysical existence. And you say no to that. You should also be confessing at the same time. Yeah, I wanted to follow up on Sylvia's question.

[71:06]

And I think Sylvia's anxiety is that when we talk about all the behaviors between us in reality, then it makes it sound like the world and some of our high ideals, like the passion that we put in each other, is that nothing exists apart from us. And since they're not able to talk about this, I think we can talk about it. And I wanted to create another way. Because I also think that this was on Charlie's question the other day. Why is it that people tell you their secret when you approach them in a loving and tender way? Because I think the question is, is there anything about the world that makes it lovable? Other than the passion we love? Charlie doesn't know. But I'm telling you, there's nothing like that. For example, you're lovable. I'm not saying that you are lovable. But I'm telling you something.

[72:08]

You just want to be treated that way. When we're in love. But for you to think like that, there has to be something out there. It's going to tell you the secret. The secret is? You know what the secret you're going to tell me is? I don't know. Tell him. Tell him. The secret you're going to tell me is that you're mean. You're not up for it. That's why I love you. Not because you're lovable, but because you're mean. You already love me. Even though I'm not lovable, I do anyway. We all love ourselves. You've got it. You've got it. You love it. You're mean. Talk it out. You're mean. Between thinking that people have value just because you say they have value,

[73:12]

and because you value them. If I'm on, do you need me? Yeah. But something like this is always presented as a reality. It sounds like things have value only because you say they have value. Sometimes when I think about this, it seems like it's been put into a neolithic tradition. There's nothing out there except our saying that things are out there, or our saying that things have value. It's starting to tell me that there's really nothing except our assertions. You can get into a... There's something in the neolithic tradition. There's also the neolithic. You can't stop people from living in the neolithic, and that depends on their interests. Right. But I think the world is valuable. It's not just that it's valuable that we say it is. And whether that means... And that doesn't necessarily require a distinction between subject and object. It's not like there's going to have to be a world of argument about it. I mean, the world might be big, but it has value after you've said it.

[74:13]

You can learn something before you say it. Right. But there also has to be a world of logic. I don't know. I don't know. I think we all know what you mean. I think it's logic. I mean, I think it's logic. I completely disagree with you. Love is not based on living being a certain way. You love it no matter what it is. It's not because of what it is that you love it. That's not love. That's self-projection. Because of what it is. Because of the thing it is, that's why you love it. That's self-projection. Not because of the thing it is, but because it's capable of being... I mean, it's the same thing. Love is loving the thing not because of the way it is. Because the thing works. It's an empirical thing. It changes. And then you stop loving it. No, I'm not...

[75:16]

I'm not saying that you are going to pursue it. You are pursuing it. You're doing fine. I disagree with you. Big time. [...] I agree.

[75:39]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ